MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131966673 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001745

Best Practices for Scientific Computing

2014· article· en· W2131966673 on OpenAlexafffund
Greg Wilson, D. A. Aruliah, C. Titus Brown, Neil Chue Hong, M. Ryleigh Davis, Richard Guy, Steven H. D. Haddock, Kathryn Huff, Ian M. Mitchell, Mark D. Plumbley, B. M. Waugh, Ethan P. White, Paul Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoOntario Tech University
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBest practiceSoftwareSet (abstract data type)BiologyProductivitySoftware developmentData scienceSoftware engineeringCode (set theory)Reliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceEngineering ethicsProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientists spend an increasing amount of time building and using software. However, most scientists are never taught how to do this efficiently. As a result, many are unaware of tools and practices that would allow them to write more reliable and maintainable code with less effort. We describe a set of best practices for scientific software development that have solid foundations in research and experience, and that improve scientists' productivity and the reliability of their software.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0200.015
Open science0.0100.011
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.010

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.450
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.025 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations721
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207